K. HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus and to set aside the disciplinary proceedings which are pending from December, 2013. He also seeks consequential relief for effecting regular promotion on par with his juniors.

(2.) This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police and was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis on 16.07.2020. He was issued a Charge Memo on 06.12.2013 for some alleged offences and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.18 of 2013). Learned counsel argues that from 2013 till date no effective proceedings have been taken and that because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings the petitioner's juniors were already promoted and petitioner is denied promotion. He argues that this delay is ground enough to quash all further proceedings. He relies upon the judgments which are filed by him and in particular the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.V. Mahadevan v M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 to argue that the appellant should not be made to suffer because of the mistakes of the department and that the proceedings should be quashed. He also relies upon Prem Nath Bali v Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 and State of A.P. v N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 and other cases to argue that in certain cases of such gross delay this Court should not merely direct the conclusion of the old enquiry but should in fact quash all further proceedings. It is his submission that a Government Officer should not be penalized in this manner by keeping the proceedings pending and promoting his juniors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this itself is a ground enough to quash all further proceedings. He relies upon the G.O. Ms. No.679, dated 01.11.2008, issued by the State Government, which stipulated time frame of 3 months and 6 months for simple and complicated cases respectively. It is his submission that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 if the enquiry is not completed action can also be initiated against the concerned enquiring authority.